A pardon is a government decision to allow a person who has been
convicted of a crime to be free and absolved of that conviction, as if
they were never convicted.
Today, pardons are granted in many countries when individuals have
demonstrated that they have paid their debt to society, or are
otherwise considered to be deserving of them. Pardons are sometimes
offered to persons who were either wrongfully convicted or who claim
that they were wrongfully convicted. In some jurisdictions of som
nations, accepting a pardon may implicitly constitute an admission of
guilt; the offer is refused in some cases. Cases of wrongful
conviction are nowadays more often dealt with by appeal rather than by
pardon; however, a pardon is sometimes offered when innocence is
undisputed in order to avoid the costs that are associated with a
retrial. Clemency plays a very important role when capital punishment
is applied.

By country[edit]
Canada[edit]
Pardons[edit]
The
Parole Board of CanadaParole Board of Canada (PBC) is the federal agency responsible for
making pardon decisions under the
Criminal Records Act (CRA). Under
the CRA, the PBC can issue, grant, deny, and revoke pardons.
In 2012, the
Parliament of CanadaParliament of Canada passed the Safe Streets and
Communities Act,[1] which changed a number of elements regarding the
criminal justice system. The Act replaced the term "pardon" with
"record suspension",[2] and the pardon system was similarly
changed.[3]
A pardon keeps a judicial record of a conviction separate and apart
from other criminal records, and gives law-abiding citizens an
opportunity to reintegrate into Canadian society.
The CRA removes all information about the conviction for which an
individual received the pardon from the Canadian Police Information
Centre (CPIC). Federal agencies cannot give out information about the
conviction without approval from the
Minister of Public SafetyMinister of Public Safety Canada.
A pardon does not, however, erase the fact that an individual was
convicted of a crime. The criminal record is not erased, but it is
kept separate and apart from other (non-pardoned) criminal records.
A pardon removes disqualifications caused by a criminal conviction,
such as the ability to contract with the federal government, or
eligibility for Canadian citizenship.
If an individual in receipt of a pardon is convicted of a new offence,
the information may lead to a reactivation of the criminal record for
which the pardon was received in CPIC.
A pardon does not guarantee entry or visa privileges to another
country. Before travelling to another country, individuals must still
contact the authorities of the country in question to find out what
the requirements are to enter that country.
Processing of pardons by the National Parole Board generally takes six
months for a summary offence and 12 months for an indictable offence.
If the Parole Board proposes to deny the application, it can take 24
months to process.[4]
Individuals can apply for a pardon if they were convicted as an adult
of a criminal offence in Canada, or of an offence under a federal act
or regulation of Canada, or if they were convicted of a crime in
another country and were transferred to Canada under the Transfer of
Offenders Act or International Transfer of Offenders Act. Non-Canadian
citizens are not eligible for a Canadian pardon unless they were
convicted of a crime in Canada.
To be eligible for a pardon or record suspension, individuals must
have completed all of their sentences and a waiting period.
Individuals are considered to have completed all of their sentences if
they have:

Paid all fines, surcharges, costs, restitution and compensation orders
Served all sentences of imprisonment, conditional sentences, including
parole or statutory release
Completed their probation order

Prior to 2012, following completion of all of their sentences,
individuals must have completed a waiting period, as follows:

3 years for summary convictions under the
Criminal Code or other
federal act or regulation, except sexual crimes against children
3 years under the National Defence Act, if fined $2,000 or less,
detained or imprisoned 6 months or less, or subjected to various
lesser punishments for a service offence
5 years for indictable convictions under the
Criminal Code or other
federal act or regulation and summary convictions of sexual crimes
against children
5 years for all convictions by a Canadian offender transferred to
Canada under the Transfer of Offenders Act or International Transfer
of Offenders Act
5 years under the National Defence Act, if you were fined more than
$2,000, detained or imprisoned more than 6 months, or dismissed from
service
10 years for indictable convictions for sexual crimes against children
and criminals receiving more than 2 years of imprisonment time for
"serious personal injury offence" such as manslaughter or other
designated offence under section 752 of the Criminal Code.[5]

5 years for summary convictions under the
Criminal Code or other
federal act or regulation, except sexual crimes against children
5 years under the National Defence Act, if fined $2,000 or less,
detained or imprisoned 6 months or less, or subjected to various
lesser punishments for a service offence
10 years for indictable convictions under the
Criminal Code or other
federal act or regulation and summary convictions of sexual crimes
against children
10 years for all convictions by a Canadian offender transferred to
Canada under the Transfer of Offenders Act or International Transfer
of Offenders Act
10 years under the National Defence Act, if fined more than $2,000,
detained or imprisoned more than 6 months, or dismissed from service
"Not Eligible" for indictable convictions for sexual crimes against
children (Schedule 1 Offence under CRA)
"Not Eligible" for criminals with more than three (3) offences
prosecuted by indictment, each with a prison sentence of 2 or more
years.[6]

Applicants for a record suspension must be able to show that they have
completed their sentences in full and provide proof of payment.[7]
Individuals can apply for a pardon by filling out the application
forms available from the Parole Board and by paying a $631 pardon
application fee.[8]
Clemency[edit]
In Canada, clemency is granted by the
Governor-General of CanadaGovernor-General of Canada or
the
Governor in CouncilGovernor in Council (the federal cabinet) under the royal
prerogative of mercy. Applications are also made to the National
Parole Board, as in pardons, but clemency may involve the commutation
of a sentence, or the remission of all or part of the sentence, a
respite from the sentence (for a medical condition) or a relief from a
prohibition (e.g., to allow someone to drive who has been prohibited
from driving).
Chile[edit]
In Chile, the institution of pardon (indulto) is regulated in the
Criminal Code (article 93, Nº 4º),[9] which deals with the
extinction of criminal liability. A pardon "only grants the remission
or the commutation of the sentence; it does not remove the condition
of having been condemned". The pardon may be either general, when it
is granted to all those covered by a specific law passed by qualified
quorum in National Congress, or particular, when it is granted by
Supreme
DecreeDecree of the President of the Republic. In Chile's
presidential regime, the President is the Head of State; in this
capacity, he or she has the discretionary power to grant particular
pardons. He or she is not obliged to seek opinion or approval from
other authorities, although, the granting of pardons is limited by the
norms of Law No. 18.050 (1981),[10] and its Regulations (
DecreeDecree No.
1542 of 1981 on particular pardons),[11] which forbid particular
pardons for those convicted of a crime of terrorism.[12]
France[edit]
Pardons and acts of clemency (grâces) are granted by the President of
France, who, ultimately, is the sole judge of the propriety of the
measure. It is a prerogative of the President which is directly
inherited from that of the Kings of France. The convicted person sends
a request for pardon to the President of the Republic. The prosecutor
of the court that pronounced the verdict reports on the case, and the
case goes to the Ministry of Justice's directorate of criminal affairs
and pardons for further consideration.
If granted, the decree of pardon is signed by the President, the Prime
Minister, the Minister of Justice, and possibly other ministers
involved in the consideration of the case. It is not published in the
Journal Officiel.
The decree may spare the applicant from serving the balance of his or
her sentence, or commute the sentence to a lesser one. It does not
suppress the right for the victim of the crime to obtain compensation
for the damages it suffered, and does not erase the condemnation from
the criminal record.
When the death penalty was in force in France, all capital sentences
resulted in a presidential review for a possible clemency. Executions
were carried out if and only if the President rejected clemency, by
signing a document on which it was written: "decides to let justice
take its course".
The Parliament of France, on occasions, grants amnesty. This is a
different concept and procedure from that described above, although
the phrase "presidential amnesty" (amnistie présidentielle) is
sometimes pejoratively applied to some acts of parliament
traditionally voted upon after a presidential election, granting
amnesty for minor crimes.
Germany[edit]
Similar to the United States, the right to grant pardon in
GermanyGermany is
divided between the federal and the state level. Federal jurisdiction
in matters of criminal law is mostly restricted to appeals against
decisions of state courts. Only "political" crimes like treason or
terrorism are tried on behalf of the federal government by the highest
state courts. Accordingly, the category of persons eligible for a
federal pardon is rather narrow. The right to grant a federal pardon
lies in the office of the President of Germany, but he or she can
transfer this power to other persons, such as the chancellor or the
minister of justice.
In early 2007, there was a widespread public discussion about the
granting of pardons in
GermanyGermany after convicted Red Army Faction
terrorist Christian Klar, who was serving six consecutive sentences of
life imprisonment, filed a petition for pardon. President Horst
Köhler ultimately denied his request.
For all other (and therefore the vast majority of) convicts, pardons
are in the jurisdiction of the states. In some states it is granted by
the respective cabinet, but in most states the state constitution
vests the authority in the state prime minister. As on the federal
level, the authority may be transferred.
Amnesty can be granted only
by federal law.
Greece[edit]
The
Constitution of Greece grants the power of pardon to the President
of the Republic (Art. 47, § 1). He/She can pardon, commute or remit
punishment imposed by any court, on the proposal of the Minister of
Justice and after receiving the opinion (not the consent necessarily)
of the
PardonPardon Committee.
Hong Kong[edit]
Prior to the Transfer of the sovereignty in 1997, the power of pardon
was a royal prerogative of mercy of the monarch of the United Kingdom.
This was used and cited the most often in cases of inmates who had
been given the death penalty: from 1965 to 1993 (when the death
penalty was formally abolished) death sentences were automatically
commuted to life imprisonment under the Royal Prerogative.
Since the Transfer, the
Chief Executive of Hong KongChief Executive of Hong Kong now exercises the
power to grant pardons and commute penalties under section 12 of
article 48 Basic Law of Hong Kong. "The Chief Executive of the Hong
Kong
SpecialSpecial Administrative Region shall exercise the following powers
and functions...to pardon persons convicted of criminal offences or
commute their penalties".
India[edit]
Under the
Constitution of IndiaConstitution of India (Article 72), the President of India
can grant a pardon or reduce the sentence of a convicted person,
particularly in cases involving capital punishment. A similar and
parallel power vests in the Governors of each State under Article 161.
The
Constitution of IndiaConstitution of India vests sovereign power in the President and
governors. The governance in the Centre and states is carried out in
the name of President and Governor respectively. A President is
empowered with the power to pardon under Article 72 of the Indian
Constitution. Article 72 says that the President shall have the power
to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or
to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of
any offence. The meaning of these terms is as follows:
The pardoning powers of the Indian President are elucidated in Art 72
of the Indian Constitution. There are five different types of
pardoning which are mandated by law. 1. Pardon: means completely
absolving the person of the crime and letting him go free. The
pardoned criminal will be like a normal citizen. 2. Commutation: means
changing the type of punishment given to the guilty into a less harsh
one, for example, a death penalty commuted to a life sentence. 3.
Reprieve: means a delay allowed in the execution of a sentence,
usually a death sentence, for a guilty person to allow him some time
to apply for Presidential
PardonPardon or some other legal remedy to prove
his innocence or successful rehabilitation. 4. Respite: means reducing
the quantum or degree of the punishment to a criminal in view of some
special circumstances, like pregnancy, mental condition etc. 5.
Remission: means changing the quantum of the punishment without
changing its nature, for example reducing 20 year rigorous
imprisonment to 10 years.
The Article 72 reads:
(1) The President shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves,
respites or remission of punishment or to suspend remit or commute the
sentence of any persons convicted of any offence-
(a) in all cases where the punishment or sentence is by a court
martial;
(b) in all cases where the punishment or sentence is for an offence
against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of
the Union extends;
(c) in all cases where the sentence is a sentence of death.
(2) Nothing in sub- clause (a) of clause (1) shall alter the power
conferred by law on any officer of the Armed Forces of the Union to
suspend, remit or commute a sentence passed by a Court Martial.
(3) Nothing in sub-clause (c) of clause (1) shall affect the power to
suspend remit or commute a sentence of death exercisable by the
Governor of a State under any law for the time being in force.
Similarly, as per article 161: Governor of a State has the power to
grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to
suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any
offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive
power of the State extends. Please note that President can grant
pardon to a person awarded death sentence. But Governor of State does
not enjoy this power.
The question is whether this power to grant pardon is absolute or this
power of pardon shall be exercised by the President on the advice of
Council of Ministers. The pardoning power of President is NOT
absolute. It is governed by the advice of the Council of Ministers.
This has not been discussed by the Constitution but is the practical
truth. Further, the Constitution does not provide for any mechanism to
question the legality of decisions of President or governors
exercising mercy jurisdiction. But the SC in Epuru Sudhakar case has
given a small window for judicial review of the pardon powers of
President and governors for the purpose of ruling out any
arbitrariness. The court has earlier held that court has retained the
power of judicial review even on a matter which has been vested by the
Constitution solely in the Executive.
However, it is important to note that India has a unitary legal system
and there is no separate body of state law. All crimes are crimes
against the Union of India. Therefore, a convention has developed that
the Governor's powers are exercised for only minor offenses, while
requests for pardons and reprieves for major offenses and offenses
committed in the Union Territories are deferred to the President.
Both the President and Governor are bound by the advice of their
respective Councils of Ministers and hence the exercise of this power
is of an executive character. It is therefore subject to Judicial
Review as held by the
Supreme Court of IndiaSupreme Court of India in the case of Maru Ram
v. Union of India [1980] INSC 213, 1981 (1) SCC 107, Supreme Court. It
was subsequently confirmed by Kehar Singh v. Union of India [1988]
INSC 370, 1989(1) SCC 204, Supreme Court. In the case of Epuru
Sudhakar & Anr vs Govt. Of A.P. & Ors [2006] INSC 638, Supreme
Court, it was held that "clemency is subject to judicial review and
that it cannot be dispensed as a privilege or act of grace". The court
made these observation while quashing the decision of then Governor of
Andhra Pradesh
Sushil Kumar ShindeSushil Kumar Shinde in commuting the sentence of a
convicted Congress activist.[13]
Iran[edit]
In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Supreme Leader has the power to
pardon and offer clemency under Article 110, § 1, §§ 11.
Ireland[edit]
Constitutional basis[edit]
The Irish constitution states (in Article 13.6) that "The right of
pardon and the power to commute or remit punishment imposed by any
court exercising criminal jurisdiction are hereby vested in the
President, but such power of commutation or remission may also be
conferred by law on other authorities".
The power of clemency is nominally exercised by the president.
However, the
President of IrelandPresident of Ireland must act "on the advice" of the
Government (cabinet), so in practice the clemency decisions are made
by the government of the day and the president has no discretion in
the matter. The responsibility can also be delegated to people or
bodies other than the president.
Amnesty and immunity, on the other hand, are usually dealt with by an
Act of the Oireachtas rather than by a general form of pardon or a
slate of individual pardons.
There are two methods by which a pardon may proceed:
Method I[edit]
In the first procedure, aimed at miscarriages of justice, the Minister
for Justice may recommend to the Government that they formally advise
the President to grant a pardon, and any conditions along with it.
1993 Criminal Procedure Act provides the method by which a person
convicted of an offense may apply for a pardon. Under this procedure,
the person must:

Have already been convicted.
Have used up their appeals.
Allege a new fact (previously known and believed to be significant,
but which he has a reasonable excuse for not having mentioned) or
newly discovered fact (including a fact previously known which was not
believed to be significant) showing a miscarriage of justice has taken
place.

Then they can apply in writing to the Minister for Justice for a
pardon. The minister may then "make or cause to be made such inquiries
as they consider necessary" and may refuse to grant the pardon on
his/her own initiative, or if they think the person should be
pardoned, bring such argument to cabinet.
Method II[edit]
Section six of the act allows a Minister for Justice to seek or
receive a pardon request from someone whose case is not a 'miscarriage
of justice', but has some other fault, such as an archaic law, a law
being misapplied by a rogue judge, a reduction in the harshness of a
sentence or a substitution of a sentence, without having to go through
the procedure above, gone through appeals, or presented new facts. It
also allows the minister to waive the procedure in a case of
miscarriage of justice if the specific case warrants it. It may also
allow prospective pardons as it allows the minister to pardon someone
who has not been convicted yet, which the other procedure requires.
Committee of Inquiry[edit]
The government itself may assemble a committee to study the case in
more detail on their behalf. This may consist of anyone, and any
number, but the chair must be:

A judge or former judge or
A Barrister of at least 10 years standing or
A solicitor of at least 10 years standing.

This special committee may look to any material it sees fit to make
its decision, even if it was not, or would not be, available to a jury
or trial judge in a normal court. The government do not have to be
bound by the committee recommendations.
Pardons under Military Law[edit]
Under Section 7(5) of the act, the same powers of the Minister for
Justice apply to the Minister for Defense in the case of military
officers and enlisted convicted by courts martial.
Compensation[edit]
The Minister for Justice or Defense may also, in their absolute
discretion, pay compensation, determined by them alone, to any person
given a pardon, if this compensation is applied for. If they think the
compensation is too low they may challenge for a higher figure in the
High Court.
List of people who have received a Presidential
PardonPardon since 1938
The power is used very infrequently compared to, for example, pardons
in the United States.

Israel[edit]
In
IsraelIsrael the President has the power to pardon criminals or give them
clemency. The pardon is given following a recommendation by the
Minister of Justice.
After the Kav 300 affair, President
Chaim HerzogChaim Herzog issued a pardon to
four members of the
Shin BetShin Bet prior to them being indicted. This
unusual act was the first of its kind in Israel.
Italy[edit]
In Italy, the President of the Republic may "grant pardons, or commute
punishments" according to article 87 of the Italian Constitution. Like
other acts of the president, the pardon requires the countersignature
of the competent government minister. The Constitutional Court of
ItalyItaly has ruled that the
Minister of Justice is obliged to sign acts
of pardon.[14]
The pardon may remove the punishment altogether or change its form.
Unless the decree of pardon states otherwise, the pardon does not
remove any incidental effects of a criminal conviction, such as a
mention in a certificate of conduct (174 c.p.) or the loss of civil
rights.
According to article 79 of the
Italian ConstitutionItalian Constitution the Parliament may
grant amnesty (article 151 c.p.) and pardon (article 174 c.p.) by law
deliberated a majority of two thirds of the components. The last
general pardon, discounting 3 years from sentences, was approved in
2006.
Poland[edit]
In Poland, the President is granted the right of pardon by Article 139
of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. As of October 2008,
7,819 people were pardoned, while 3,046 people's appeals were
declined.

Lech Wałęsa

Approved – 3,454
Declined – 384

Aleksander Kwaśniewski

Approved – 3,295 (the first term); 795 (the second term); total –
4,090
Declined – 993 (the first term); 1,317 (the second term); total –
2,310

Russia[edit]
The
President of the Russian FederationPresident of the Russian Federation is granted the right of pardon
by Article 89 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The chain
of pardon committees manage lists of people eligible for pardon and
directs them to the President for signing. While President Boris
Yeltsin frequently used his power of pardon (1998 - 7,8 thousand
cases), his successor
Vladimir PutinVladimir Putin is much more hesitant; he granted
five pardons in 2014 and two in 2015.[15]
PardonPardon can be requested in any time. The next request can be submitted
in minimum one year after the previous one.[16]
South Africa[edit]
Under section 84(2)(j) of the Constitution of the Republic of South
Africa, 1996 (Act 108 of 1996), the President of the Republic of South
Africa is responsible for pardoning or reprieving offenders. This
power of the President is only exercised in highly exceptional cases.
To pardon a person is to forgive a person for his/her deeds. The
pardon process is therefore not available to persons who maintain
their innocence and is not an advanced form of appeal procedure.
PardonPardon is only granted for minor offences after a period of ten years
has elapsed since the relevant conviction.
For many serious offences (for example if the relevant court viewed
the offence in such a serious light that direct imprisonment was
imposed) pardon will not be granted even if more than ten years have
elapsed since the conviction.
Spain[edit]
The derecho de gracia ("right of grace") or indulto ("pardon") is
acknowledged by the
Spanish Constitution of 1978Spanish Constitution of 1978 as a privilege of the
King of SpainKing of Spain (article 62.i: "Functions of the King"). The Spanish
Constitution defines it as a renounce on the State's part of its own
punitive power on behalf of an individual, founded on reasons of
equity or public interest. The Constitution subjects royal pardons to
the Law and forbids general pardons, so they have to be granted
individually. Theoretically, a royal pardon can be granted for a
general offense or accessory offenses alone; if it is granted for a
general offense, the accessory ones it implies are also pardoned, with
the exception of punishments involving political rights (i.e., removal
of the right to run for a public office as a result of a sentence),
which have to be explicitly mentioned in the pardon decree if they are
going to be pardoned.
The procedure and requirements for the grant of the pardon are given
by the Law of 18 June 1870, modified by the Law 1/1988 of 14 January.
The application for royal pardon has to be carried out by the
convicted person himself, his relatives or any other person in his
name. The convicting court will then issue a report of the case, which
shall be considered along with the public comments of the Prosecutor
and the victims of the crime if there were any. All of this is
gathered by the Minister of Justice, who will present the pardon issue
to the Cabinet of Ministers. If the Cabinet decides a pardon should be
granted, then the
Minister of Justice will recommend as such to the
King. Pardons are issued by Royal
DecreeDecree and have to be published in
the Boletín Oficial del Estado ("Public Journal").
Pardons are not commonly conceded in Spain but for offenders convicted
for minor crimes who are about to complete their sentence and have
shown good behaviour and repentance. Dating back to medieval times,
several organisations and religious brotherhoods still hold the right
of granting pardons as part of some privilege or other granted to them
by the King of Spain. The scope of this privilege depends on the royal
charter received by the organisation when their right to concede
pardons was granted, though it usually holds only for minor offenses
in very especial conditions; this right is implicitly acknowledged by
the public offices nowadays, though it is not exercised but following
the usual procedure for royal pardons. Traditionally, they will
propose some petty criminal about to end his sentence for pardon being
granted to him, and he/she will be released following the tradition to
which the pardon holds, usually during the Holy Week. This type of
pardons are distinguished from the usual ones in that they only
release the prisoner from jail, halting the sentence, but do not
pardon the offense itself.
Switzerland[edit]
In Switzerland, pardons may be granted by the Swiss Federal Assembly
for crimes prosecuted by the federal authorities. For crimes under
cantonal jurisdiction, cantonal law designates the authority competent
to grant pardons (if any). In most cantons, the cantonal parliament
may pardon felonies, and the cantonal government may pardon
misdemeanors and minor infractions.
Turkey[edit]
The president of
TurkeyTurkey is granted the right of pardon under certain
circumstances defined in the constitution, article 104. According to
the article, the president can "remit, on grounds of chronic illness,
disability, or old age, all or part of the sentences imposed on
certain individuals". After the convict's or his or her proxy's
application, if the Council of Forensic Medicine determines that the
convict suffers from chronic illness, disability, or old age, the
Ministry of Justice presents the situation to the president, and the
president can choose to grant a pardon.
Additionally, the parliament of
TurkeyTurkey has the power to announce
general amnesty.
United Kingdom[edit]
The power to grant pardons and reprieves in the
United KingdomUnited Kingdom is
known as the
Royal prerogative of mercy. It was traditionally in the
absolute power of the monarch to pardon an individual for a crime,
whether or not he or she had been convicted, and thereby commute any
penalty; the power was then delegated both to the judiciary and the
Sovereign's ministers. Since the creation of legal rights of appeal,
the
Royal prerogative of mercy is no longer exercised by the person of
the sovereign, or by the judiciary, but only by the government.
In constitutional terms, under the doctrine of the Rule of Law, the
power of ministers to overrule the judiciary by commuting criminal
sanctions imposed resolves different and sometimes conflicting public
interests. In civil matters, only the legislative branch, and not
ministers, have the power to override the judiciary.
Until the nineteenth century, for many crimes the sentence was
mandatory and was formally pronounced in court immediately upon
conviction, but judges and ministers were given powers to exercise the
Royal prerogative of mercy out of court, in order to mitigate the
rigour of the law. Before there was any general form of criminal
appeal, a judge might grant a pardon either by way of clemency,
because he felt in his opinion that the law was unduly harsh (for
example, in the case of convictions of minors), that the verdict was
dubious, that to seek public approval, or it was otherwise in the
public interest. Capital sentences imposed by the
Assizes were
generally executed when the Assize was concluded and as the circuit
judge left the town, so there was a limited window of time to apply to
a judge or directly to the Crown for a pardon. Especially for Assizes
that were far away from the then capital and major cities of London,
York, Durham, Edinburgh, or Dublin, a pardon might well arrive too
late. Perhaps as a form of temporary punishment, to give solace, to
avoid public disorder, to consult or obtain further evidence, or to
maximise the public approval of the King's mercy, judges often did not
grant their pardons until their departures; the convict often hoped
until his last moments that the sentence of death would not actually
be executed, and it was generally popular for a reprieve to arrive at
the scaffold at the very moment of the execution.[17]
Conditional pardons were granted to many in the 18th century, in
return for transportation to British colonies overseas for life in
lieu, especially to the Australian Colonies.
The first known General
PardonPardon in post-Conquest England was issued
during the celebrations at the coronation of King Edward III in 1327.
In 2006, all soldiers from England, Wales, Scotland, and
IrelandIreland who
were executed for cowardice during the
First World WarFirst World War were given a
statutory pardon by an Act of Parliament, resolving a long-running
controversy about the justice of their executions.[18] (See the Armed
Forces Act 2006.)
Today the Sovereign only grants pardons upon the advice of her
ministers: currently they are the Secretary of State for Justice, for
England and Wales, the First Minister of Scotland, or the Secretary of
State for Northern Ireland. The
Secretary of State for DefenceSecretary of State for Defence is
responsible for military cases. It is the standard policy of the
Government to only grant pardons to those who are considered "morally"
innocent of the offence, as opposed to those who may have been wrongly
convicted by a misapplication of the law. Pardons are generally no
longer issued prior to a conviction, but only after the conviction.
The use of the
Royal prerogative of mercy is now a rare occurrence,
given that the
Criminal Cases Review CommissionCriminal Cases Review Commission and the Scottish
Criminal Cases Review CommissionCriminal Cases Review Commission are now avenues to statutory remedies
against miscarriages of justice.
Therefore, the grant of pardons is now very rare occurrence indeed,
and the vast majority of acknowledged miscarriages of justice were
decided upon by the courts. During the
Birmingham SixBirmingham Six case, Home
Secretary
Douglas HurdDouglas Hurd stressed that he could only make the decision
for a pardon if he was "convinced of [their] innocence", which at the
time he was not.[19]
One recent case was that of two drug smugglers, John Haase and Paul
Bennett. They were pardoned in July 1996 from their sentences of
imprisonment both of 18 years, having served some ten months, on the
advice of Home Secretary Michael Howard.[20] This was intended as a
reward for their information given to the authorities, but there were
speculations as to the motives of the Home Secretary.[21] In 2008 they
were sentenced to imprisonment for 20 and 22 years, respectively,
after subsequent discovery that their information given was
unreliable.
In 1980, after the courts had dismissed their appeals, the Home
Secretary, William Whitelaw, used the
Royal prerogative of mercy to
free David Cooper and Michael McMahon from their imprisonment, both
having been convicted of murder on poor evidence.[22][23]
Under the Act of Settlement, a pardon cannot prevent a person from
being impeached by Parliament, but a pardon may commute any penalties
imposed for the conviction. In England and
WalesWales no person may be
pardoned for an offence under Section 11 of the Habeas Corpus Act 1679
(unlawfully transporting prisoners out of England and Wales).[24]
United States[edit]

Federal law[edit]
Main article: Federal pardons in the United States
See also: List of people pardoned or granted clemency by the President
of the United States
In the United States, the pardon power for federal crimes is granted
to the President of the
United StatesUnited States under Article II, Section 2 of
the
United StatesUnited States Constitution which states that the President "shall
have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the
United States, except in cases of impeachment". The U.S. Supreme Court
has interpreted this language to include the power to grant pardons,
conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional
commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures,
respites, and amnesties.[25]
All federal pardon petitions are addressed to the President, who
grants or denies the request. Typically, applications for pardons are
referred for review and non-binding recommendation by the Office of
the
PardonPardon Attorney, an official of the
United StatesUnited States Department of
Justice.[26] The percentage of pardons and reprieves granted varies
from administration to administration; however, fewer pardons have
been granted since World War II.[27]
The pardon power has been controversial from the enactment of the
United StatesUnited States Constitution.
State law[edit]
The pardon power of the President extends only to an offense
recognizable under federal law.[28] However, the governors of most of
the 50 states have the power to grant pardons or reprieves for
offenses under state criminal law. In other states, that power is
committed to an appointed agency or board, or to a board and the
governor in some hybrid arrangement (in some states the agency is
merged with that of the parole board, as in the Oklahoma
PardonPardon and
Parole Board).[29]
Nine states in the
United StatesUnited States have Boards of Pardons and Paroles
that exclusively grant all state pardons. These states are: Alabama
(Board of Pardons and Paroles), Connecticut (Board of Pardons and
Paroles), Georgia (Board of Pardons and Paroles), Idaho (Commission of
Pardons and Paroles), Minnesota (Board of Pardons), Nebraska (Board of
Pardons), Nevada (Board of
PardonPardon Commissioners), South Carolina
(Board of Probation, Parole and Pardon), and Utah (Board of Pardons
and Parole).
On at least three occasions, state governors—George Ryan[30] of
Illinois in 2003, Toney Anaya[31] of New Mexico in 1986 and Martin
O'Malley[32] of Maryland in 2014—have commuted all death sentences
in their respective states prior to leaving office.
Related concepts[edit]
These terms differ subtly from country to country, but
generally:[33][34]

Amnesty: A pardon applied to a group of people rather than an
individual. President
Jimmy CarterJimmy Carter offered amnesty to anyone who had
evaded the draft. Weapon amnesties are often granted so that people
can hand in weapons to the police without any legal questions being
asked as to where they obtained them, why they had them, etc. After a
civil war a mass amnesty may be granted to absolve all participants of
guilt and "move on". Amnesties are typically applied in advance of any
prosecution for the crime.
Commutation: Substituting the imposed penalty for a crime with a
lesser penalty, whilst still remaining guilty of the original crime
(e.g., someone who is guilty of murder may have their sentence
commuted to life imprisonment rather than death, or the term of
imprisonment may be reduced).
Remission: Complete or partial cancellation of the penalty, whilst
still being considered guilty of said crime (i.e., reduced penalty).
Also known as remand, the proceedings by which a case is sent back to
a lower court from which it was appealed, with instructions as to what
further proceedings should be had.
Reprieve: Temporary postponement of a punishment, usually so that the
accused can mount an appeal (especially if he or she has been
sentenced to death).[35]
Respite: The delay of an ordered sentence, or the act of temporarily
imposing a lesser sentence upon the convicted, whilst further
investigation, action, or appeals can be made.[36]
Clemency: Catch-all term for all of the above, or just referring to
amnesty and pardons.
Expungement: The process by which the record of a criminal conviction
is destroyed or sealed from the official repository, thus removing any
traces of guilt or conviction.
Immunity from prosecution: A prosecutor may grant immunity, usually to
a witness, in exchange for testimony or production of other evidence.
The prosecutor (conditionally) agrees not to prosecute a crime that
the witness might have committed in exchange for said evidence. e.g.
If a car thief witnesses a murder, he will often be granted immunity
for his crime in order to allow him to testify against the murderer.
Other immunity: Several other types of immunity are available,
depending on the status of a person as a member of the government.

Some criminals who testify for the prosecution put their life in
jeopardy by doing so. To encourage witnesses to testify, the
government may offer witness protection. In the
United StatesUnited States Federal
WitnessWitness Protection Program, about "95% of [witnesses in the program]
are ... criminals."[37] Those who testify for the prosecution may be
offered immunity from prosecution for their own crimes.[37]
See also[edit]